Wasn't it the fact that the Nanjing bid was unconditional?


Or maybe it was the one the P4 wanted all along? :eyes:

 

Financial Times - Nanjing offers failed bidders Rover stake
By James Mackintosh in London and Geoff Dyer in Shanghai
Published: July 26 2005 03:00 Last updated: July 26 2005 03:00

Nanjing Automobile has approached the unsuccessful bidders for MG Rover in an attempt to sell a majority stake in the collapsed Birmingham carmaker, just three days after the Chinese group won the contested auction.

Nanjing, which agreed to pay just over £50m for the assets of Rover and Powertrain, its engine arm, wants outside funding and a management team for the UK operations in order to restart production of MG cars.
The sale would not include equipment for making engines and production lines for the small and medium cars, which will be shipped to China.

Nanjing contacted Fraser Welford-Winton, the former head of Powertrain who led a rejected management buy-out bid, over the weekend, hours after being told of its success on Friday.

The move is likely to stoke controversy over the bidding process. Both Shanghai Automotive Industry Corp, China's biggest carmaker, and David James, the corporate turnround expert, are angry at how Nanjing was picked by PwC, administrators of Rover since it collapsed in April. PwC, however, said Nanjing's offer was higher and unconditional, and would have expired had a deal not gone ahead.

SAIC met Baker & Mackenzie, the law firm, to consider court action against Nanjing to assert its rights to engines and Rover car designs, which it bought last year. But Nanjing is prepared to take investment from Chinese carmakers too, suggesting even SAIC could be asked to become a partner. It wants to make MG sports cars and saloons.

Liu Ningsheng, head of public affairs, said the group was open to approaches from domestic and international carmakers, as well as local governments in China, to invest in the Rover business.

Arup, the British engineering consultancy advising Nanjing, added: "We are interested in talking to all of those who have an interest in making a viable UK business."

Mr Welford-Winton declined to say what he was discussing with Nanjing, but it is understood that he could lead the UK management team or, with his financial backers, buy a controlling stake.

Mr James said he was "very interested" in buying the MG business from Nanjing.

 

The plot thickens and is now getting interesting. I wonder how much of this has been sorted out already AND how much prior to the sale of MGR by PWC? We can only look on, wait and wonder.

Ken

 

Had it confirmed that Nanjing was not the highest bidder for MG Rover.

Martyn Moseley bid £82m - c.£32m more than Nanjing.

That's a definite.

So what exactly is going on? :err:

John

I wonder if the creditors will be made aware of that at their meeting?????

Carry on sniffing out these titbits John

 

It seems strange that they would knock back a higher bid unless as another member has suggested ,it may have had conditions attached.

I remember another thread somone raised some weeks ago about UK ministers viisiting china and discussing MGR .One could be forgiven for being sceptical about the bid proccess if there has been any government involvement. Im sure that should SAIC carry through with their threat to take on Nanjing in court, some of the bidding proccesses will come out.
Its all very well for PWC to pipe up after extracting 40 odd million pounds out of MGR and say 'no correspondence will be entered into" but realistically they are going to need to explain to the public at large,ex workers etc ,some of whose money was used to pay their fees,why they knocked back a higher bidder.

 

Had it confirmed that Nanjing was not the highest bidder for MG Rover.

Martyn Moseley bid £82m - c.£32m more than Nanjing.

How do we know this? There doesn't appear to have been a single mention of Mr Moseley or his bid anywhere outside this website. Newspapers are pretty good at picking this sort of thing up, so I'm beginning to wonder if Mr Moseley was ever a reality. It certainly appears that PWC never took anything seriously from that avenue.

 

Agreed. Other than on this forum there has been no real mention of Moseley or AAA. The lack of mention by PwC would lead me to think tha the bid was never really made, or else rejected for some reason.
PwC have such a reputation that they wouldn't do anything without careful consideration.

 

All very sinister!

 

How do we know this? There doesn't appear to have been a single mention of Mr Moseley or his bid anywhere outside this website. Newspapers are pretty good at picking this sort of thing up, so I'm beginning to wonder if Mr Moseley was ever a reality. It certainly appears that PWC never took anything seriously from that avenue.

Actuallly he starts appearing in todays newspaper reports. I guess we will know more after the current creditor meeting.

 

Why doesn't he go public? Can the creditors block the sale?

 

Agreed. Other than on this forum there has been no real mention of Moseley or AAA. The lack of mention by PwC would lead me to think tha the bid was never really made, or else rejected for some reason.
PwC have such a reputation that they wouldn't do anything without careful consideration.

Moseley has been on BBC radio and in the papers, Triple A was in AutoCar. I would love to know PWCs reasons for not dealing with Moseley.

 

How do we know this? There doesn't appear to have been a single mention of Mr Moseley or his bid anywhere outside this website. Newspapers are pretty good at picking this sort of thing up, so I'm beginning to wonder if Mr Moseley was ever a reality. It certainly appears that PWC never took anything seriously from that avenue.

When the bidding process was reaching fever point somebody put a post up about that PWC may have told bidders to shutup. Think about it SAIC release statements and talk to the press, David James talks to any one who will listen even the Russian TVR bloke talked to the press yet Nanjing say sod all and they win

Now correct me if i am wrong but Moseley only talked to the press once early on in the bidding race and that was it. What i reckon happened was Moseley put together a perfect plan for MG ROVER but PWC were influenced by outside interests mainly the goverment wanting MG ROVER dead and buried so there was no danger of it coming back to haunt them also P4 most probaly had some interest in MG ROVER going to the chinese and PWC are ONLY interested in the money for fees NOT the interests of jobs and manafacturing and as they are the only ones with all the info they can do a deal without being found out.

 

So what exactly is going on?

I'd like to know the same. I'd like to know why, as a creditor, I'm likely to get less in the way of compensation than if they had gone for the Moseley / AAA bid or even the David James bid, which IIRC was around 60m?

Quite who are PWC responsible to, The phat 4 or us creditors?

:irked:

 

Additionally, the Moseley bid was UNCONDITIONAL and was realisable in CASH. The bid would aso see VOLUME car production retained at Longbridge and production would recommence as quickly as possible.

Personally, I can't see Moseley taking this lying down. Certainly, when I met him he was like a dog with a bone and I am sure this will only strengthen his resolve.

Regards

John

 

It sounds like Nanjing are only interested in the engines, the rest they are looking to sell on and profit from

Steve, what's the story behind you being a creditor (if you don't mind me asking)

 

Wasn't Moseley's original aim to restore all production at Longbridge? With SAIC being awkward over IP and Honda having removed the 45/ZS equipment this just isn't possible now.

Moseley could still have a part to play in an MG UK consortium, with his bulldog spirit and impressive backing. If I were him I would be talking to Nanjing and Fraser Welford-Winton about such a consortium and not wasting time on legal action. (Legal action could always come later)


So... Moseley, Nanjing, ARUP, Fraser WW, Rally Matt, Magma, David James and Moulton get around that table.

 

Interesting...

When did Martyn Mosley submit his bid? Was it late on Friday by any chance? PWC would have had their reasons.

But Nanjing approaching Fraser Welford-Winton is interesting news. If he were running the UK operation - with potentially owning some of it as well - it could bode well for a UK operation. Even better, it would be a company with some UK ownership and some commitment to long term production in the UK. I can't see too many people complaining about that.

Well, actually I can, but that is another story.

 

PwC Interest

After the P4 PwC are probably the biggest financial winners out of this. As a partnership they are driven by profitability per partner and I'm sure Tony Lomas will have an exceddingly good year.

PwC are extremely well connected to the government. They are probably the largest provide of business advisory services to the government are well connected to ministers. They are able to call on ministers to speak at their conferences and Jack Straw's brother is a partner in their public sector practice. Whether this means they would take a brief from the government you can draw your own conclusions.

 

I think PWC are almost out of it now, they've made their money. Now its Nanjing's turn to do some wheeler dealing.

 

Is Moseley taking this to court John? Or will he be going public even?

Can the Creditors not block the sale, or do the P4 have the casting vote?

 

Well, it rather sounds like Nanjing (South Steam??) are now rather sh****g themselves after ending up with rather more than they bargained for - sounds like they only really wanted the motor plant, and are now panicking to offload the rest before the bill comes in for it...

 

Additionally, the Moseley bid was UNCONDITIONAL and was realisable in CASH.

Surely PWC should be acting in the best interests of the creditors, which is to realise as much wonga as possible?

 

Is Moseley taking this to court John? Or will he be going public even?

Can the Creditors not block the sale, or do the P4 have the casting vote?

My understanding is that the creditors can block the sale and in the current circumstances would be wise to do so, until at least after some serious questions have been asked. After all, if a Moseley led bid were to get Longbridge, they'd probably get at least twice as much back as they'd get from a deal with Nanjing.

As for an injunction, wait and see. Having spoken with Martyn this afternoon, his focus remains very much upon acquiring Longbridge and he quite sensibly sees any kind of legal action as very much last resort stuff.

Regards

John

 

crooks?

as with most dealings these days, i wonder how much is above board. Maybe someone in china paid someone in PWC, possibly a decision maker, a large amount of cash. now im now saying anything untoward has happened, but my experiences with bosses these days leads me to conclude most of them are crooks. can i be sued for slander or libel or something? if so, whoops

 

Surely PWC should be acting in the best interests of the creditors, which is to realise as much wonga as possible?

Not as clear cut as that. MG Rover and associated companies entered voluntary administration. Therefore, PWC's role is to administer the business on behalf of the Thiev... oops, sorry Phoenix 4.

However, the administrators of any business have a duty of care to the creditors, just as regular directors would. Whether PWC have acted in a manner that fulfils those obligations to the creditors is a question that I perhaps best not offer an answer to :err:

John